1. Comment #159300 by tman on April 11, 2008 at 11:09 pm

That made my night. Too Funny.

Other Comments by tman

2. Comment #159301 by Philip1978 on April 11, 2008 at 11:11 pm

I am going to have to say it again, Bill is going up in my estimations even more these days, I thought that was a good interview.

I thought the questions were good and allowed Richard time to get some interesting points across.

Plus, here have evidence of Richard being able to change his mind once given better evidence, now Richard thinks the same as I do about Francis Collins! :)

Cheers

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

3. Comment #159302 by History_Junky on April 11, 2008 at 11:11 pm

That was entertaining, good work Mr.Dawkins!

Other Comments by History_Junky

4. Comment #159303 by Madphatcat on April 11, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Maybe he thinks the noises snakes make naturally is a kind of language. You know like Parseltongue from Harry Potter. :p

Other Comments by Madphatcat

5. Comment #159304 by RationalistHomeTchr on April 11, 2008 at 11:17 pm

So nice to have a relaxed and funny video clip to show. The Prof. changes his mind twice (about Francis Collins AND about his own rating on the scale of atheism--from 6 to 6.9)...Both were very charming.

...I wonder which of Prof. Dawkins' phrases Bill Maher has "stolen"?

Other Comments by RationalistHomeTchr

6. Comment #159305 by Philip1978 on April 11, 2008 at 11:26 pm

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/

Crazy old man, Collins really does go for the whole talking snake bollocks, the guy is both VERY intelligent and VERY bloody stupid at the same time! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

7. Comment #159306 by cam9976 on April 11, 2008 at 11:27 pm

It's always wonderful to see atheists teaming up like this: Maher brings his popularity and comedic sense to the table while Dawkins espouses his massive intellect.

Other Comments by cam9976

8. Comment #159307 by sarah95 on April 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRpbkpNpgw

Other Comments by sarah95

9. Comment #159308 by Bueller_007 on April 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm

>I am going to have to say it again, Bill is going up in my estimations even more these days, I thought that was a good interview.


Well, to be sure, he's reasonable about many things, but did you hear his rant against prescription drugs?

He actually made me agree with Jonah f-ing Goldberg.

Skip to five minutes in. Now THIS is religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXv-TVo5UOY

Other Comments by Bueller_007

10. Comment #159310 by MPhil on April 11, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Used to like Maher quite a bit - especially his stand-up work - some good points, some good jokes and sometimes very good at performing.

But he's a hit and miss guy, really. Some very strange ideas - sometimes taking a good idea and pushing it into lunacy (careful with meds - don't take a pill for every little thing -> meds are evil for example). Also, some of his political positions are a little strange and unsubstantiated, and he doesn't seem to be able to acknowledge when he's wrong about them... but I do enjoy him now and then.

Other Comments by MPhil

11. Comment #159311 by Bueller_007 on April 11, 2008 at 11:46 pm

>Crazy old man, Collins really does go for the whole talking snake bollocks, the guy is both VERY intelligent and VERY bloody stupid at the same time! :)


I don't see anything in your link to support this claim. Collins is a critic of creationism (inc. intelligent design), so I don't see how he could possibly reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve in anything more than the symbolic sense.


This is his view on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioLogos

Other Comments by Bueller_007

12. Comment #159313 by SteveN on April 11, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Thank you Philip1978 for posting that link to Sam Harris' review of Collins' book. I haven't heard or read much from Sam recently, and had missed that review when it first appeared. His razor-sharp wit combined with his eloquence is always refreshing. I particularly liked:

In [The Language of God], he attempts to demonstrate that there is "a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony" between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity. To say that he fails at his task does not quite get at the inadequacy of his efforts. He fails the way a surgeon would fail if he attempted to operate using only his toes. His failure is predictable, spectacular and vile."

and

"It is at this point that thoughts of suicide might occur to any reader who has placed undue trust in the intellectual integrity of his fellow human beings."


Go Sam!

Other Comments by SteveN

13. Comment #159316 by TheGreatBZ on April 12, 2008 at 12:06 am

People are not stupid because they believe in talking snakes. They are irrational insofar as they do believe in that, but to claim that they are stupid because of that is going to far. You can be irrational in one thing without being irrational in others.

Other Comments by TheGreatBZ

14. Comment #159320 by Midas on April 12, 2008 at 12:17 am

I've read Francis Collins book "The Language of God", and he definitely is not the sort of Christian who would believe in talking snakes. I though Maher verballed him. I agree with Bueller_007, Collins is anti-ID, fully accepts all aspects of evolution and shouldn't be derided with that lot.

Other Comments by Midas

15. Comment #159321 by Quine on April 12, 2008 at 12:20 am

I read Collins' book. It went along fine while he was putting forth the message that evolution is real, and I often use it against creationists and IDiots. However, once he gets to the part about seeing the three part frozen waterfall, it goes straight down the drain.

Other Comments by Quine

16. Comment #159327 by Enlightenme.. on April 12, 2008 at 12:59 am

"People are not stupid because they believe in talking snakes."

If that is understood as a metaphor for 'the devil on [eve's] shoulder', then I suppose I can somehow relate to that.

Otherwise, I cannot concieve of a compartment secure enough to contain that much stupid...
there is no compartment in my mind that can hold that concept!

I have done a quick search around to find this Bill Maher interview of Collins, can somebody post a link? - after doing a quick scan of the God vs Science article in Time magazine Collins really doesn't seem to be from the batshit crazy end of the spectrum.
But still, his Paleys watch/frozen waterfall thing is still 'far out'.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

17. Comment #159329 by Peacebeuponme on April 12, 2008 at 1:05 am

Not sure it was particularly fair of Richard to be so disimissive of Francis Collins (even before the talking snake revelation). I thought they were friends?

Richard was very funny, but the clip will just add to the theist argument that atheists are smug and arrogant.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

18. Comment #159330 by Peacebeuponme on April 12, 2008 at 1:07 am

Quine

I read Collins' book. It went along fine while he was putting forth the message that evolution is real, and I often use it against creationists and IDiots. However, once he gets to the part about seeing the three part frozen waterfall, it goes straight down the drain.

Him reconciling his daughter's rape with God (because she can now help out in a rape crisis centre) is something I found particularly repugnant.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

19. Comment #159331 by Philip1978 on April 12, 2008 at 1:13 am

Bueller_007

Sorry if I haven't made myself clear, I have a degree in English and History and should know better :)

Bill is still a bit wacky for my taste, that prescription drug thing amongst others keep me backing off a little each time.

Secondly the link I sent, I agree there is nothing about Adam and Eve and talking snakes and I have misrepresented Collins. I read the waffle about how the 3 frozen waterfalls confirmed his decision to give himself to God and thought it was a similar sort of thing, ie if he can believe in 3 frozen waterfalls, talking snakes would be a breeze!

I hope thats made stuff a bit clearer and I apologise for generalising.

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

20. Comment #159334 by Enlightenme.. on April 12, 2008 at 1:27 am

^ it's not 'believing in' 3 frozen waterfalls - I've never read the direct account, but my impression is he was virtually all the way to conviction already when he stumbled upon these 'triune' waterfalls and it somehow enraptured him.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

21. Comment #159335 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 1:30 am

Philip1978, no worries. I can be a bit fussy, especially when I have a touch of free time on my hands, as I do now.


Cheers.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

22. Comment #159336 by Steve Zara on April 12, 2008 at 1:30 am

I wonder if Richard could hear the audience response to his comments? They seemed very favourable and amused.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #159338 by Szymanowski on April 12, 2008 at 1:33 am

Richard was very funny, but the clip will just add to the theist argument that atheists are smug and arrogant.

Since that's not an "argument", I couldn't care less!

Seriously. Anyone can see through the 'arrogance' thing. What atheist wears a three-foot-long hat and gold-trimmed robes?

(before any smart-arse pipes up - it's a rhetorical question...)

Other Comments by Szymanowski

24. Comment #159339 by Peacebeuponme on April 12, 2008 at 1:37 am

Szymanowski

Anyone can see through the 'arrogance' thing. What atheist wears a three-foot-long hat and gold-trimmed robes?

Don't get me wrong, when Dawkins and Hitchens are on form, I'm cheering with the rest of the crowd. I agree with Steve that it was great to hear an American crowd so behind him.

I think its very weak when theists accuse Richard of being shrill and arrogant. I'm just questionning whether its fair or wise to call a scientist of Francis Collins standing an 'administrator'.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

25. Comment #159340 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 1:38 am

More Bill stupidity from last night, starting from 41 seconds in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6cyGA5p3aI


Sometimes he's really, really off-base.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

26. Comment #159345 by MPhil on April 12, 2008 at 1:56 am

Yes, sometimes he is - like with the Magic Johnson part in New Rules - but the final New Rule about the catholic church, especially the last statement on the topic hits the nail on the head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w82G7LoATkw

Other Comments by MPhil

27. Comment #159347 by Peacebeuponme on April 12, 2008 at 2:04 am

Bueller - That bit about the schoolgirl fight has made me not like Maher very much at all.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

28. Comment #159350 by ridelo on April 12, 2008 at 2:18 am

A copy of The God Delusion in every hotel room? Wont stay there very long, I guess. A bible yes. Who wants to pinch a bible?

Other Comments by ridelo

29. Comment #159352 by Stephen Maxwell on April 12, 2008 at 2:20 am

Steve Zara, I doubt he could because there probably wasn't one there. As Maher said at the start "today I spoke with the Oxford professor...", probably due to the time difference since Real Time broadcasts live at 11pm in LA.

I'm surprised noone has mentioned it yet but that was clearly a laugh track that they had added and it was pretty distracting.

Apart from that though, the interview was great. I'd love to see Dawkins on the panel some time.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

30. Comment #159355 by CITCOR on April 12, 2008 at 2:27 am

The Richard Dawkins interview made my night, especially his reaction when he found out Francis Collins really believes in "the talking snake".

Other Comments by CITCOR

31. Comment #159356 by Peacebeuponme on April 12, 2008 at 2:34 am

Stephen Maxwell

I'm surprised noone has mentioned it yet but that was clearly a laugh track that they had added and it was pretty distracting.

Why do you think it was not the audience?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

32. Comment #159357 by Stephen Maxwell on April 12, 2008 at 2:41 am

Why do you think it was not the audience?

Like I said, Bill mentioned speaking to Richard 'today' so they clearly switched to a recording of the interview from earlier on.

I watch Real Time with Bill Maher and the audience doesn't sound like this - hard to explain but it's true. Also, they don't just laugh hysterically at every off the cuff comment.

I guess I understand why they did it, it would've been too empty sounding without any audience presence but it was a little distracting and fake sounding for me.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

33. Comment #159358 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 2:41 am

>The Richard Dawkins interview made my night, especially his reaction when he found out Francis Collins really believes in "the talking snake".


Let's just clarify again. Francis Collins *does not* believe in the talking snake, at least not in any meaningful literal sense. He rejects creationism (including ID) in its entirety.

There's nothing wrong with having a laugh at the expense of the religious, but let's not assign beliefs to FC that he does not actually hold.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

34. Comment #159359 by Steve Zara on April 12, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #159347 by Peacebeuponme

And it made me like Jason Alexander quite a bit more.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #159362 by Peacebeuponme on April 12, 2008 at 2:53 am

Stephen Maxwell

Like I said, Bill mentioned speaking to Richard 'today' so they clearly switched to a recording of the interview from earlier on.

They could have been laughing at the tape, but I take your point. I don't watch the show often.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

36. Comment #159373 by esuther on April 12, 2008 at 3:38 am

Regarding the laugh track, ALL laughter in those news-comedy shows is fake, or at leased forced. I used to live in Manhattan and was in the 'studio audience" of two shows. Before the show gets started/taping,there are 'warmer-uppers' who get the audience fired up. We were told that it is a comedy show that depends on our enthusiastic response to remarks, so they actually rehearse the audience laughter. So whether a laugh track is added or cued makes no real difference: it's all part of infotainment.

Other Comments by esuther

37. Comment #159376 by Richard Dawkins on April 12, 2008 at 3:48 am

Like I said, Bill mentioned speaking to Richard 'today' so they clearly switched to a recording of the interview from earlier on.

They could have been laughing at the tape, but I take your point. I don't watch the show often.

My interview was recorded before the show, but there definitely was an audience in the studio. I think they had been brought in to provide an atmosphere during the taping, because I could hear Mr Maher talking to them before I went on, and I could hear them laughing then, as well as during my interview. There was a technical hitch when the recording of my interview started, and Maher was making jokes, to which the audience laughed, about the fallibility of technology.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

38. Comment #159379 by Stephen Maxwell on April 12, 2008 at 3:56 am

In that sense I'm glad they recorded it Richard.

There's a few times when doing a live feed that they've completely lost the connection and they have to move on with the show. I can only imagine the uproar that would've caused. :P

I enjoyed the interview anyway.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

39. Comment #159380 by Matt7895 on April 12, 2008 at 3:58 am

Him reconciling his daughter's rape with God (because she can now help out in a rape crisis centre) is something I found particularly repugnant.

If he really said that, not only is he repugnant, he is evil. The man is not fit to have a daughter if he can say her rape is god-sent.

Other Comments by Matt7895

40. Comment #159381 by Katherine on April 12, 2008 at 3:59 am

Utterly excellent!

I really must meet Richard some time!

Other Comments by Katherine

41. Comment #159385 by Peacebeuponme on April 12, 2008 at 4:21 am

Matt7895

This is what he said:

In my case I can see, albeit dimly, that my daughter's rape was an opportunity for me to try to learn the true meaning of forgiveness in a terribly wrenching circumstance. Perhaps this was also an opportunity for me to recognize that I could not truly protect my daughters from all pain and suffering; I had to learn to entrust them to God's loving care, knowing that this provided not an immunization from evil, but a reassurance that their suffering would not be in vain. Indeed, my daughter would say that this experience provided her with the opportunity to counsel and comfort others who have gone through the same kind of assault.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

42. Comment #159388 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 4:37 am

re: Comment #159385 by Peacebeuponme


As Hitchens has said, this is the maximum of solipsism. Notice how his daughter's rape is all about what God had planned FOR HIM. He only mentions its effect on his daughter as an afterthought.

Although I can sympathize with the man and his daughter for what they went through, this statement is simply repugnant.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

43. Comment #159389 by Scandinavian07 on April 12, 2008 at 4:38 am

Ayaan will be on next week.

Good stuff!

Wish Dawkins could have been on the panel.

Other Comments by Scandinavian07

44. Comment #159391 by Peacebeuponme on April 12, 2008 at 4:48 am

Bueller_007

As Hitchens has said, this is the maximum of solipsism. Notice how his daughter's rape is all about what God had planned FOR HIM. He only mentions its effect on his daughter as an afterthought.

To be fair he wasn't trying to speak for his daughter: he starts the sentence with "In my case...". I wouldn't want to suggest that his daughter's feelings were anything less than his most important concern. However, the convoluted justification with God is, as you say, repugnant.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

45. Comment #159392 by rchoquette on April 12, 2008 at 4:50 am

This was a wonderful way to start my weekend.

I like Maher's shows. He is always quite entertaining; he is quite open about his atheism. Leave it to Maher, he brings out the best. Dawkins was quite amusing; very elegantly so. I like that!

Dawkins was quite correct in his statement regarding the recent converts to atheism:

Yes, in fact, I am among those folks, that Dawkins mentioned about, who did not realize that I had been an atheist, for quite a number of years, until I read Dawkins "God Delusion" book. Now I find this to be quite sentimental, that Dawkins is so well attuned to his readers.

Wow!

Other Comments by rchoquette

46. Comment #159395 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 5:06 am

re: Comment #159391 by Peacebeuponme


I'm not sure. What was the preceding paragraph of the book? What is the "in my case" referring to?

To me, that entire quote sounds like he's trying to say that her rape was for the "higher good" because:

"It gave me some new insights on love and forgiveness. And oh yeah, besides my daughter's permanent emotional scarring, she's tried to make the best of things too."

It's beyond my comprehension that an intelligent man could possibly think that rape could possibly be justified like this. Appalling.

Although I will say that if he really did, it's impressive that he found it within himself to forgive the person who assaulted his daughter.


Incidentally, for those wondering what Bill was talking about when he said that he "interviewed Francis Collins" (something I can find no record of online), after hearing this quote, I figure it was most likely an interview for Religulous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous

Other Comments by Bueller_007

47. Comment #159399 by Peacebeuponme on April 12, 2008 at 5:13 am

Bueller

I'm not sure. What was the preceding paragraph of the book? What is the "in my case" referring to?

It doesn't really help. I may be giving him the benefit of any ambiguity. You could read it quite selfishly, but I doubt realistically he thinks like that.

It's beyond my comprehension that an intelligent man could possibly think that rape could possibly be justified like this. Appalling.

No argument there.

Although I will say that if he really did, it's impressive that he found it within himself to forgive the person who assaulted his daughter.

Impressive, but not good.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

48. Comment #159402 by FightingFalcon on April 12, 2008 at 5:26 am

I highly suggest everyone watches the New Rules segment of last night's show, which was posted by MPhil. Bill Maher is completely spot-on when he says that the only difference between a religion and a cult is volume (e.g. # of believers). Recently in Texas a polygamist ranch was raided under the justification that polygamy is illegal in Texas and that it was guilty of child abuse. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church gets away with child abuse daily and never faces punishment.

I don't share all of Bill Maher's views but since we're both Libertarians, I agree with him more often than I disagree. I love watching his show.

My favorite line: "One reason I think yourself and so many others are beginning to speak out against organized religion is, uh, because it's ridiculous!! It's ridiculous!"

I just hope Dawkins didn't give the audience the wrong impression by talking about fairies and pink unicorns :-)

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

49. Comment #159414 by Pattern Seeker on April 12, 2008 at 6:39 am

As my 3-year old is fond of saying-

Science bless you, Richard Dawkins

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

50. Comment #159432 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 7:27 am

I cannot stand Maher. The guy is shallow, smug and ugly, he is not even funny. Just one of those loud mouthed, witless, talentless twits who infest American night time television for whom smart arses remarks are somehow equated with "comedy".

Other Comments by Bonzai